Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.:---Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

In these proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a challenge is sought to be preferred to the Award of a sole arbitrator dated 25th August, 2001. Two significant issues arise in the present case. The first arises in the context of an allegation of bias against an arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court has to consider as to when it can be said that there are justifiable doubts as regards the independence and impartiality of an arbitrator within the meaning of section 12 of the Act. The Court must determine as to what would be the appropriate test to be applied in law. A related issue is as to when the duty of disclosure is attracted so as to warrant a disclosure of a given set of circumstances. The second important issue which arises in this case is as to whether the provisions of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 are attracted to arbitral proceedings commenced against a guarantor when the principal debtor has been declared as a sick industrial